paper-review

name	paper-review
description	Review academic papers in LaTeX projects. Analyzes TeX source files, figures, and bibliography to provide comprehensive peer review feedback. Use when the user asks to review a paper, evaluate a submission, or wants feedback on their LaTeX manuscript.
version	1.0.0
author	Academic Paper Tools
license	MIT
tags	["Academic","Paper Review","LaTeX","Peer Review","NeurIPS","ICML","ICLR","CVPR"]

Paper Review - AI-Powered Academic Paper Evaluation

This skill provides comprehensive peer review for LaTeX academic papers by directly analyzing source files.

Activation Triggers

Use this skill when the user:

• Asks to "review this paper" or "review my paper"
• Wants feedback on a LaTeX manuscript
• Asks about paper quality, novelty, or acceptance chances
• Mentions ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML, CVPR, or other venue submissions

Review Process

Step 1: Discover Project Structure

First, identify the LaTeX project structure:

Typical LaTeX project:
├── main.tex              # Main document (look for \documentclass)
├── sections/             # Or mysec/, chapters/, etc.
│   ├── 1_intro.tex
│   ├── 2_method.tex
│   └── ...
├── figures/              # Or figs/, images/, asset/
│   ├── figure1.pdf
│   └── ...
├── main.bib              # Or references.bib, ref.bib
└── *.sty                 # Style files (can ignore)

Actions:

1. Use LS to explore the project root
2. Find the main .tex file (contains \documentclass)
3. Locate figure directories and .bib files

Step 2: Read Core Content

Read files in this priority order:

1. Main tex file - Get document structure, abstract, title
2. Introduction - Understand motivation and contributions
3. Method/Approach - Core technical content
4. Experiments - Results and evaluation
5. Figures - Visual quality and clarity (use Read on image files)
6. Bibliography - Reference quality and completeness

Tips:

• For \input{sections/intro}, read sections/intro.tex
• For \includegraphics{figures/fig1}, read the image file
• Pay attention to \cite{} commands for reference analysis

Step 3: Evaluate Paper Quality

Assess the following dimensions:

3.1 Technical Contribution

• Novelty: Groundbreaking / Significant / Incremental
• Soundness: Are the methods technically correct?
• Completeness: Is the approach fully described?

3.2 Experimental Evaluation

• Baselines: Are comparisons fair and comprehensive?
• Datasets: Appropriate and sufficient?
• Metrics: Standard and meaningful?
• Ablations: Do they validate design choices?

3.3 Presentation Quality

• Clarity: Is the writing clear and well-organized?
• Figures: High quality, informative, readable?
• Math: Notation consistent? Equations well-explained?

3.4 Related Work

• Coverage: Are key papers cited?
• Positioning: How does this work differ from prior art?

Step 4: Generate Review Report

Provide a structured review in this format:

## Paper Review: [Title]

### Summary
[2-3 sentence summary of the paper's main contribution]

### Strengths
1. [Major strength with specific reference to content]
2. [Another strength]
3. ...

### Weaknesses
1. [Major weakness with specific location, e.g., "Section 3.2, line discussing X"]
2. [Another weakness]
3. ...

### Questions for Authors
1. [Clarifying question]
2. ...

### Detailed Comments

#### Introduction (sections/1_intro.tex)
- [Specific feedback with line references if helpful]

#### Method (sections/3_method.tex)
- [Specific feedback]

#### Experiments (sections/4_experiments.tex)
- [Specific feedback]

#### Figures
- Figure 1: [Assessment]
- Figure 2: [Assessment]

### Overall Assessment

| Aspect | Rating | Comment |
|--------|--------|---------|
| Novelty | ⭐⭐⭐☆☆ | [Brief comment] |
| Soundness | ⭐⭐⭐⭐☆ | [Brief comment] |
| Presentation | ⭐⭐⭐☆☆ | [Brief comment] |
| Significance | ⭐⭐⭐☆☆ | [Brief comment] |

**Recommendation**: Accept / Weak Accept / Borderline / Weak Reject / Reject

**Confidence**: High / Medium / Low

Special Modes

Quick Review Mode

If user asks for a "quick review" or "brief feedback":

• Read only main.tex, intro, and method sections
• Provide 3 strengths, 3 weaknesses, overall recommendation

Focus Review Mode

If user asks about specific aspects (e.g., "review my experiments"):

• Focus on the requested sections
• Provide deeper analysis of that specific area

Rebuttal Helper Mode

If user provides reviewer comments:

• Analyze each reviewer concern
• Suggest specific responses with references to paper content
• Identify which concerns need new experiments vs. clarification

Important Notes

1. Be Constructive: Frame criticism as suggestions for improvement
2. Be Specific: Reference exact locations (file, section, paragraph)
3. Be Fair: Acknowledge both strengths and weaknesses
4. Be Actionable: Provide concrete suggestions, not vague complaints
5. Consider Venue: Adjust standards based on target venue (top-tier vs. workshop)

Example Interaction

User: Review my paper in the release/ folder

Agent Actions:

1. LS release/ → Find main.tex, mysec/, figures/, main.bib
2. Read release/main.tex → Get structure, abstract
3. Read release/mysec/1_intro.tex → Analyze introduction
4. Read release/mysec/3_method.tex → Analyze methodology
5. Read release/mysec/4_experiments.tex → Analyze experiments
6. Read release/figures/figure1.pdf → Check figure quality
7. Synthesize findings into structured review report